Apra amcos response to the discussion paper
Download 66.91 Kb.
|
| REVIEW INTO THE EFFICACY OF THE CODE OF CONDUCT FOR AUSTRALIAN COPYRIGHT COLLECTING SOCIETIES
APRA AMCOS RESPONSE TO THE DISCUSSION PAPER APRA is Australia’s oldest and largest collecting society. It is the collecting society in Australia in respect of the public performance and communication rights of songwriters and music publishers. This typically covers the performances of music in more than 60,000 Australian businesses, including retail shops, nightclubs, restaurants and festivals, among many other settings, as well as the communication of musical works online, such as in download and streaming services, and on commercial television and radio. AMCOS is the collecting society in Australia in respect of reproduction of music in certain formats. This covers the reproduction of musical works on CD, DVD, online, for use as production music, and for radio and some television programs. Together, APRA and AMCOS control the copyright for such purposes in almost all commercially available musical works, by virtue of assignments from its local members and affiliations with similar overseas societies. Since 1997, the two organisations have been administered in tandem, and these submissions represent the united view of both. APRA AMCOS has more than 90,000 Australian and New Zealand members and 107,000 licensees. The membership is diverse, ranging from unpublished writers to major music publishers. APRA AMCOS represents hundreds of thousands of overseas members, and tens of millions of musical works, via its reciprocal arrangements with performing and mechanical right collecting societies throughout the world. Since 2000, APRA has operated under the terms of authorisations granted initially by the Australian Competition Tribunal, and subsequently by the ACCC. APRA most recently renewed its authorisations in 2014, and is authorised until 2019. APRA AMCOS was actively involved in the initial drafting of the Code prior to its introduction in 2002 and has reported to the Code Reviewer each year since then. APRA AMCOS has actively participated in each Triennial Code Review. The experience of the Code has been an overwhelmingly positive one for APRA AMCOS, its members and its licensees. APRA AMCOS has changed its practices, at significant expense, as a direct result of the operation of the Code. In particular, it has instituted or reformed complaints handling procedures, and the results of this can be seen in the report of the Code Reviewer each year. APRA AMCOS notes the terms of reference for this review, in particular that the Discussion Paper extends the scope of the review to “recommendations on ways to improve overall confidence in the system” and “how … collecting societies … have evolved to respond to [new technologies]”. APRA AMCOS will also address these additional matters. In relation to the introductory matters set out in the Discussion Paper regarding efficiency versus market power, APRA AMCOS notes that while the general statements made regarding the benefits of competitive pressure are of course true, it is not the case that collecting societies manage “nearly every lawful … reproduction of creative materials in Australia.” (DP page 8). While it is correct that nearly every lawful public performance of musical works and sound recordings is licensed collectively, the Discussion Paper does not take account of some significant performances and recordings that are not collectively licensed: it is not the case that the majority of lawful reproductions are collectively licensed, if value is the relevant metric. The right to make an initial reproduction of a musical work in the form of a master recording is a licence controlled closely by the copyright owner, as is the right to reproduce musical works in film, including for television (including Netflix etc) and in advertisements. The public performance of music in musical theatre is not the subject of collective licensing except in the case of low value and low profile performances, such as those by schools and some amateur groups. In addition, APRA AMCOS members are able to withdraw all of their works from the society’s repertoire for particular uses, in order to enter into direct licensing arrangements or to withhold licences. APRA AMCOS members are also able to request a non-exclusive “licence back” of their rights in a flexible process that permits the member to enter into direct licensing arrangements in Australia and New Zealand (but not to withhold a licence for use). Accordingly, it would be wrong to characterise the music licensing industry as being one in which fierce product and price competition does not take place. In particular, price and product competition occurs between individual members of collecting societies at the point of determining which works are to be published and recorded (including into film and television, and advertisements), to be publicly performed in the case of musical theatre, and to be promoted for communication in the form of playlists on prominent service providers such as Spotify. However, it is clear that for multiple low value uses, collective management is the most efficient way of ensuring widespread compliance with copyright laws and reasonable returns to copyright owners. In its 2014 Determination, the ACCC noted that this “is particularly valuable for the many users who do not know in advance which musical works they will be performing and may not even have control over these (for example, where a radio station is played on the premises or a broadcaster or live performer ‘takes requests’). The key product feature which these types of users require is immediate access to a comprehensive repertoire of musical works” and results in similar savings for “owners [who] save both time and cost from dealing with each individual user.” 1 Question 1: To what extent is the Code meeting its original purpose: to ensure collecting societies operate ‘efficiently, effectively and equitably’? If it is not meeting its original purpose, do the Code’s stated objectives need to be revisited to better deliver on its purpose? The origins of the Code are the recommendation made by the Simpson Report (in 1995) that the position of Ombudsman of Copyright Collecting Societies be established, and that guidelines be established, and the recommendation made by the Don’t Stop the Music! Inquiry in 1998, that a voluntary Code of Conduct for collecting societies be developed “to outline acceptable licensing practices and activities.” The inquiry recommended that the Code should only be made enforceable by legislation “if the collecting societies do not comply with [it].” Neither the Don’t Stop the Music! Inquiry nor the Code of Conduct itself states the purpose of the Code to be “to ensure collecting societies operate ‘efficiently, effectively and equitably,’” although this was referred to in the government’s response to the 1998 Inquiry, in the context of a reference to recommendations made by the Simpson Report. (That government response also supported, for a number of articulated reasons, the introduction of a voluntary code.) In fact, the current Code, in clause 1.3, states its objectives to be: the promotion of awareness of and access to information about copyright or the resale royalty right and the role and function of collecting societies; to promote confidence in collecting societies and the effective administration of copyright; to set out standards of service that members and licensees can expect from collecting societies; and to ensure that members and licensees have access to efficient, fair and low cost complaints and disputes procedures. Accordingly, APRA AMCOS does not accept that the purpose of the Code is “to ensure collecting societies operate ‘efficiently, effectively and equitably.’” The Code is one of numerous governance imperatives that together regulate APRA AMCOS’ behaviour, and should not be looked at in isolation. In its 2014 Determination the ACCC found that “the Code … exists to provide a minimum level of acceptable conduct by collecting societies and the Annual Report of the Code Reviewer publicises how each society’s performance is tracking.”2 APRA AMCOS believe that its adherence to the Code results in the Code’s stated objectives being met. However, APRA AMCOS also complies with numerous other regulatory and governance requirements that also serve to ensure its activities operate within best practice. APRA AMCOS has a sophisticated independent dispute resolution facility (discussed in detail below), publishes Plain English Guides to all of its licence schemes, rigorously trains its staff in Code compliance as detailed in the report of the Code Reviewer, and is a member of the Australian Copyright Council which among other things provides free information about copyright to members of the public. In addition, APRA AMCOS is subject to the usual laws that govern companies in Australia, including the Copyright Act 1968, Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and the Corporations Act 2001. APRA AMCOS is also subject to the terms of its Constitution, its ACCC authorisation, its membership and licence agreements, its Distribution Rules, its reciprocal agreements, the CISAC statutes, and its internal governance documents. APRA AMCOS submits that it is unrealistic to expect a single document to deliver efficient, effective and equitable operations of a disparate group of collecting societies. The Code is one of a number of instruments that together deliver those outcomes. Question 2: How effective is the Code in regulating the behaviour of collecting societies? Does it remain fit-for-purpose? APRA AMCOS believe that the reports of the Code Reviewer accurately document the effect of the Code on the behaviour of the societies. For the first year in which APRA AMCOS reported under the Code there were 52 complaints, including a high proportion expressions of dissatisfaction about copyright law as it applies to small businesses. The introduction of the Code, and the reporting regime that effectively requires APRA AMCOS to review each complaint received has had the following impact on operations: we try to minimise the number of complaints by examining historic causes of complaint and removing or minimising those causes, and anticipating – in every decision made – whether complaints are likely to be made and taking appropriate anticipatory steps; we rigorously monitor and constantly up-grade communications to each client group – both members and licensees – so as minimise complaints about paucity of information; we regularly review each area of substantive interaction with licensees or members to ensure compliance with key public undertakings in the Code. For example, upon the proposed introduction of a new licence scheme, APRA AMCOS ensures that by whatever external and objective criteria are available, the scheme can properly be regarded as fair and reasonable as regards terms and conditions, including fees, that the relevant trade association(s) has or have been identified, notified and invited into a consultative process, that all information relevant to the proposal is provided in a reasonable and transparent manner to the trade association and individual licensees, and that the proposed scheme is drafted clearly in plain English; and we record, monitor and respond to complaints themselves to ensure compliance with timeliness undertakings set out in our published complaints handling procedures, that we are not embarrassed by delays or inattention in compliance reviews and that we are not embarrassed by failure to disclose a complaint in their report (given the prospect of a complainant going directly to the Code Reviewer). Following the introduction of the Code of Conduct, APRA AMCOS comprehensively revised its systems to establish and improve automated systems of complaint recording and monitoring, training and compliance procedures, and communications protocols. Since 2002, due at least in part to the introduction of the Code, the service culture at APRA AMCOS has improved dramatically. For the year 2015 – 2016, APRA AMCOS received the lowest number of complaints ever – 5 complaints from licensees and none from members. The Reviewer’s overall comment was: "allowing for the fact that no doubt a collecting society has an interest in the way in which it describes complaints and its dealings with them, it must nonetheless be said that APRA AMCOS’ report in both respects to the Code Reviewer is commendably detailed and, apparently, frank”. APRA AMCOS believes that such a dramatic shift in the nature and number of complaints received is a strong indication that the Code is effectively playing its part in the regulation of APRA AMCOS’ conduct. It is fit for purpose and has, in any case, an in-built mechanism to address any shortcomings that may arise, in the Triennial Code Review process. Question 3: Is there sufficient clarity as to how the Code interacts with the broader regulatory framework? Should the Code be modified to help parties better understand the broader legislative obligations of collecting societies? Clause 2.1 of the Code sets out the legal framework in which the collecting societies operate. APRA AMCOS supports clarity regarding the legal and regulatory framework, and if the Code requires amendment in this regard would be happy to consult regarding such amendments. APRA AMCOS notes that the Code was reviewed as recently as 2017, in accordance with its scheduled triennial review. No licensee or member bodies attended the public meetings regarding the review of the Code, and no submissions were received regarding a lack of clarity regarding any aspect of the Code. Question 4: Considering the differences in the way different collecting societies operate, is a framework in which a single code applies to all societies effective? There are a number of efficiencies that arise from having a single Code, in particular the ability of the societies to share the costs of the drafting and amendment of the Code, and of the Reviewer. APRA AMCOS believes that a single Code is appropriate, given that as noted above the Code sits within a broader framework and is also supplemented by certain additional regulations that are unique to each society. The Code deals with general matters relating to standards of conduct, which are the same for each society. Matters relating to specific membership and distribution issues, and the particular licensing arrangements of each society, are more appropriately dealt with by the society’s own procedures and governing documents. APRA AMCOS notes that a number of licensees will have dealings with more than one society. It is appropriate that those licensees should be able to expect a uniformly high standard of conduct from societies under the Code, but then look to the terms of their own contracts for particular matters related to, for example, reporting and calculation of fees. As noted above, different societies also have different regulatory constraints. For example, APRA operates under the constraints of an authorisation from the ACCC, which is particular to APRA. It would not be efficient for the Code to deal with matters particular to APRA, especially not when the ACCC authorisation already does so. Other societies are bound to comply with the Attorney-General’s guidelines for declared societies, APRA AMCOS is not. If specific matters such as those were dealt with in the Code, it would likely cause considerable confusion amongst members and licensees, who might impute the regulatory requirements for one society to another. APRA AMCOS believe it is important to remember the stated purposes of the Code as set out above at paragraph 14. The purposes are broad, and general in nature. They relate to general minimum standards that members and licensees can expect from societies. More specific matters need to be, and are, dealt with in each societies own corporate documents, and by external regulatory processes. Question 5: What have been the impacts of the internet on the collecting society business model? Of course there is no single collecting society business model. “The internet” has affected APRA AMCOS in many dramatic ways, in the same way as it has affected the vast majority of Australian businesses. The effects are both positive and negative. The ubiquitous use of email as the primary communication method imposes increased pressures on staff due to the expectation of instantaneous turnaround times, and increases costs associated with storage. While social media platforms have increased the ability of APRA AMCOS to interact with members and licensees, they have also increased exposure to and costs associated with protection against defamatory statements and misinformed criticism. Similarly, the use of online search engines has both increased the speed at which research can be conducted, and decreased access to verified expert resources. APRA AMCOS’ particular business model has been affected by “the internet” due to the proliferation of digital music services, which has required the development, negotiation, and in some cases, litigation of new licence schemes and new distribution protocols. Since the Code was first introduced, APRA AMCOS’ media licensing department has dealt with more than 3,000 additional licensees whose businesses require online digital licensing. Many of these licensees offer digital services which were previously unknown at the time of their launch and required the negotiation and drafting of bespoke licence agreements. As discussed below, the impacts of digital delivery of music content, including audio visual content, over “the internet” has had a profound effect on APRA AMCOS’ operation and operational structures, including that APRA AMCOS has seen a ten-fold increase in the level of data being received and needing to be processed over the last 7 years. “The internet” is, of course, also the means by which large scale and widespread piracy takes place, causing incalculable damage to APRA AMCOS members and direct legal costs for APRA AMCOS. Question 6: What administrative costs has digitalisation enabled collecting societies to reduce or avoid? How has digitalisation impacted on the way collecting societies collect and distribute funds? The assumption inherent in this question is that costs have been reduced as a result of “digitisation”. “Digitisation,” in the sense of the move to the digital delivery of music content, has both increased and decreased costs in different areas of the APRA AMCOS business. On balance, APRA AMCOS is of the view that the impact of digital delivery of music content, and the attendant increase in both the number and the scale of participants in the digital market, has imposed significant cost pressures on APRA AMCOS. Of course, “digitisation” has resulted in the decrease of some costs. In particular, the ability to conduct licensing transactions remotely has reduced staffing costs, and physical storage costs have also decreased as a result of a decreasing reliance on paper resources. The cost of general meetings has reduced significantly with the introduction of electronic notices and voting, even taking into account the costs of implementing the change. However, the experience of “digitisation” in the industry as a whole has seen the need for APRA AMCOS to divert significant administrative resources and additional costs to the administration of online services and management of vastly increased data processing. As noted above, the volume of data now received by APRA AMCOS in respect of the use of music online is unprecedented. Of the last seven years, the lines of data that APRA AMCOS is required to process has increased from just over 1.36 million lines in 2010 to well over 1.5 billion lines in 2017. This data must be ingested, processed and matched before being processed again to make accurate distributions to APRA AMCOS members and affiliates. Since 2010, the number of lines of data used for distribution purposes has increased by 1300%, from just under 14 million in 2010 to well over 200 million in 2017. The number of musical works being processed and paid by APRA AMCOS has also increased as a result of online digital delivery of music content as usage of “long tail” musical works has become more common. Since the commencement of the Code of Conduct in 2002, the number of musical works paid has increased from just over 380,000 to more than 3 million works in 2017. While much of this processing is automated, there remain significant issues with the quality of the data received from licensees, such that manual matching is often required. The increased volume of data and administrative burden in respect of online music use has not been offset by any reduction in the amount of data provided by traditional media and general performance licensing. The additional costs required to manage the use of music in the online environment has included: increased staff resources, including media licensing staff, ICT resources, and distribution and research staff; significant investment in software development and maintenance of a data management system that can accommodate (among other things) the reporting of use by large online services such as YouTube and Spotify, and calculate distributions on a track by track basis. Many thousands of hours have and continue to be invested in the programming of APRA AMCOS’ systems to accommodate the processing of online musical works usage. APRA AMCOS is midway through a project to develop a new copyright management system that by 2018 will carry a value of approximately $20.5 million, that the Board sees as essential for business over the next ten years; substantial additional computer and ICT hardware costs for staff across the business have been incurred to enable APRA AMCOS to take full advantage of any efficiencies that better information and computer technology can provide; increased costs for digital data storage and security; an increase in costs associated with monitoring and administration of the online environment as the number of service providers and distribution channels increase, including commercial negotiating teams and legal costs; and costs in the region of $250,000 annually incurred in respect of the introduction of music recognition technology to allow for more accurate distributions to members whose works are used in advertising jingles alone – this does not include the cost of music recognition technology for dance music in nightclubs and at events. Question 7: Are additional measures needed to ensure licensees have greater transparency over how their licence fees are calculated? If so, how could this be achieved? APRA AMCOS assumes this question is directed towards the transparency of licence scheme formulation, rather than actual licence fee calculation. APRA AMCOS licence fees are calculated by the licensee in accordance with the relevant scheme, and are generally based on clear metrics such as a percentage of box office, or a per subscriber amount. It is a condition of APRA’s ACCC authorisation that all published licence schemes have an accompanying Plain English Guide that sets out why a licence is required, how licence fees are calculated, and how the licensee can adjust music use to affect licence fees. If the question is, should there be greater transparency as to how a licence scheme is formulated, APRA AMCOS believes its processes are extremely transparent. APRA AMCOS negotiates licence schemes by public consultation, or by consultation with the relevant industry body. Where relevant, APRA AMCOS applies schemes in accordance with Copyright Tribunal determinations. Licence schemes for sophisticated licensees such as media organisations or large online services are also formulated transparently and negotiated with individual parties or relevant industry associations. Question 8: What additional measures may be needed to achieve greater transparency in the distribution of funds? How could these measures be implemented? APRA AMCOS publish their distribution rules and practices on the APRA AMCOS website. The documents are complex, but set out clearly how amounts are allocated and paid. Members receive detailed distribution statements that show the source of revenue and the licence scheme under which the fees were paid. APRA AMCOS has invested significant resources in music recognition technology, to better achieve accuracy in the distribution of licence fees for advertising jingles and dance music. The Boards of both APRA and AMCOS have a Membership and Distribution committee that deals with, among other things, requests by members for distributions in relation to “unlogged performances.” The committees also examine and determine changes to the distribution rules, often in consultation of wider member groups. For example, in response to a complaint received from a group of dance music writers and publishers in 2013-4, APRA AMCOS formed a Club Music Advisory Group which meets regularly throughout the year to discuss how music recognition technology might best be used in nightclubs. APRA AMCOS also has a Jingle Advisory Group that provides input, feedback and advice to APRA AMCOS towards achieving accurate jingle reporting and distribution. APRA AMCOS does not believe it is appropriate for amounts distributed to individuals to be made public – to do so would be a violation of the individual member’s rights to maintain confidentiality over their incomes. It would also, in the case of at least corporate members, amount to the release of sensitive market information that might have a distorting affect on the markets in which the members operate. In some markets, the release of distributed amounts would also violate licensees’ rights to privacy and confidentiality – for example, in relation to some distribution pools the APRA AMCOS distribution amounts would be sufficient information to calculate licensees’ individual market share. Question 9: Should there be more guidance around the treatment of undistributed funds held in trust? If so, what specific issues should this address? APRA AMCOS allocates revenue in accordance with their respective Constitutions. After payment of costs and allowable deductions, all amounts are allocated and held in trust pending distribution. From distributable funds, APRA determines pools for distribution and uses the relevant data for that pool to allocate amounts payable to works. For APRA AMCOS, “undistributed funds” fall into the following categories: amounts allocated to works that cannot be identified; amounts held where owners cannot be identified; amounts held where the work and the owner can be identified but the owner cannot be located; and amounts where the work is identified and there is more than one possible owner (that is, the ownership is in dispute). In relation to amounts where the work or the owner cannot be identified (mostly, these amounts relate to bad data or very new works) are held for a reasonable period of time during which expert staff members research works and ownership information. An amount based on APRA AMCOS historical control of works is retained in a contingency fund to meet claims, and the balance of money relating to unidentifiable works or owners is returned to the distribution pool and distributed on a follow the dollar basis. Amounts in dispute are also dealt with in accordance with APRA AMCOS’ published distribution rules – APRA AMCOS works hard to encourage members to resolve disputes, and has procedures to release funds to a disputing party where the other party is reluctant to participate in dispute resolution. From time to time, the issue arises as to whether money held for unidentified works or owners should be returned to licensees. The majority of APRA AMCOS licences are blanket licences for the use of all works controlled by APRA AMCOS. Works not controlled by APRA AMCOS are not covered by the licence. Accordingly, all licence fees received are properly paid to APRA AMCOS, and may be treated in accordance with the agreement between APRA AMCOS and its members. Some APRA AMCOS licences provide that if licence fees have been paid for the use of a work that is not controlled by APRA AMCOS, the amount will be returned to the licensee. This only occurs in circumstances where there is no indemnity granted to the licensee in respect of the use of such works. If an indemnity is granted, all of the licence fees paid are retained. APRA AMCOS operate on the basis that members prefer to have distributions made as accurately and as often as possible. APRA AMCOS makes four ordinary distributions a year (more in the case of amounts received from overseas societies). APRA AMCOS would be happy to provide more specific information regarding undistributed funds if required. Question 10: How could safeguards be strengthened to improve reporting and financial record keeping by collecting societies? What would be the impact of more robust reporting obligations? APRA AMCOS is not aware of any concerns having been raised under the Code or otherwise, with its reporting and financial record keeping. APRA AMCOS comply with the reporting requirements under the Corporations Act for companies limited by guarantee. They employ a finance team of 22 people, led by a CPA. They are audited annually by KPMG. The annual audit process includes a rigorous senior management internal risk assessment. Both Boards have audit and governance committees that closely supervise the companies’ financial transactions. APRA AMCOS has a schedule of risks and mitigations that is regularly reviewed by the audit and governance committees. It is difficult to imagine how this reporting and record keeping regime could be more robust. A more robust regime would have cost consequences, which would be reflected in licence fees and/or distributions. Question 11: How effective is the Code in facilitating efficient, fair and low-cost dispute resolution for members and licensees? What alternative models could be considered to provide these outcomes? The Code requires societies to develop and publicise complaints handling and dispute resolution procedures that meet the requirements set out in clause 3 of the Code. APRA AMCOS believe these requirements are appropriate, and any society that complies with them will be providing fair, efficient and low-cost dispute resolution for members and licensees. During the course of discussions with the ACCC towards APRA’s 2014 authorisation, APRA proposed, and has subsequently developed, an independent dispute resolution facility known as Resolution Pathways. The facility operates to resolve disputes between APRA and licensees, and between members of APRA. The costs of the facility are largely borne by APRA (and therefore by its members), but participants in the scheme contribute towards usage costs. The scheme is extremely successful. Information about the scheme is at http://www.resolutionpathways.com.au. Prior to developing the award winning Resolution Pathways, APRA offered a dispute resolution facility that involved expert determination and was wholly paid for by APRA. The scheme was utilised less than the current facility. In addition to the standard dispute resolution facility, APRA AMCOS is trialling with Resolution Pathways a “peer assist” program, where disputes between creators can be addressed with the assistance of their music industry peers. APRA AMCOS also notes the vital role performed by the Copyright Tribunal of Australia in connection with APRA AMCOS licences. The Tribunal has jurisdiction over all APRA AMCOS licences, and is available as an expert forum to determine terms of licence schemes when agreement cannot be reached. The Tribunal has the power to refer matters to alternative dispute resolution under Part VI Division 4A of the Copyright Act; must have regard to relevant ACCC guidelines on request under section157A; and in certain cases may make the ACCC a party to proceedings on request (section 157B). The mere fact of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction acts as a constraint on APRA AMCOS’ conduct, as noted by the ACCC in its 2014 Determination (at paragraph 334). The Discussion Paper (at Box 3) notes the expense of proceedings in the Tribunal, and states that the Tribunal “has also been criticised for arbitrary and inconsistent approaches to determining tariffs and licensing conditions, often without regard to the commercial impact on users of copyright materials has been criticised.” APRA AMCOS considers that these criticisms are disrespectful, misconceived and overstated. Certainly, proceedings in the Tribunal can be expensive. However, in almost every instance when APRA AMCOS has litigated in the Tribunal, it has been in respect of a licence scheme that is worth many millions of dollars in licence fees, and where every reasonable avenue of dispute resolution has been canvassed. Opposing parties are often monopsony purchasers of the APRA AMCOS rights. It is not unreasonable that such proceedings should involve complex expert evidence, nor that the parties should be given the opportunity to present their respective cases. As to criticisms of decisions of the Tribunal, APRA AMCOS notes that the Tribunal comprises judges of superior courts and expert lay members. It is in the nature of litigation that parties will be dissatisfied with elements of judicial decisions, but, with respect, the record of the Tribunal is beyond reproach. The submissions of the Association of Liquor Licensees Melbourne (ALLM) in this regard have been given undue weight. APRA AMCOS has had numerous dealings with ALLM, regarding the APRA AMCOS nightclub licence scheme to which the ALLM is vehemently opposed. APRA AMCOS has requested information about what the ALLM is, and whom it represents. No such information has ever been forthcoming. The ALLM has operated a website, which for many years listed its copyright campaign against APRA AMCOS and PPCA as its sole objective. The website no longer exists. ALLM’s statistics are fabricated, and its assertions are vexatious and designed to mislead. It has made virtually identical complaints to the ACCC, which have been dismissed. On occasion, a dispute with a potential licensee results in the commencement of copyright infringement proceedings by APRA AMCOS. In the vast majority of such cases, and particularly where the respondent is a small business, APRA AMCOS enforces its rights in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, which is a relatively low cost and streamlined jurisdiction. Question 12: Does the Code Reviewer have sufficient powers to make collecting societies accountable for their compliance with the Code? If not, what alternative monitoring and review processes could be introduced to improve outcomes for members and licensees? APRA AMCOS has always found the publication of a report on the operations of the society, with the associated risk of reputational damage following an adverse finding or comment, to be highly motivating. APRA AMCOS has always taken the Code process very seriously. If pecuniary penalties were to be introduced, APRA AMCOS would require the Reviewer and APRA AMCOS to be able to test the veracity of complaints. For example, complaints would have to be made public, and would need to be made subject to some process of interrogation. Codes that contain financial penalties are discussed below. Question 13: Does the Code adequately balance the interests of members and licensees? If not, what criteria could be used to assess whether that balance is achieved? The role of the Code is not to balance the interests of members and licensees. It is in the interests of members that licensees be treated in accordance with the Code, and vice versa. To address the stated purposes of the Code: the promotion of awareness of and access to information about copyright or the resale royalty right and the role and function of collecting societies – APRA AMCOS provides Plain English Guides to each of its published licence schemes, in a form acceptable to the ACCC. It employs highly trained staff who are expert in the use of music and the application of collective licensing and copyright laws. APRA AMCOS also funds the Copyright Council, which provides free information sheets and free legal advice to members of the public. to promote confidence in collecting societies and the effective administration of copyright – APRA AMCOS publishes a vast amount of information about its activities to the public at large, including its Plain English Guides discussed above. As also stated above, APRA AMCOS funds the Copyright Council, and participates in government enquires openly and in good faith. to set out standards of service that members and licensees can expect from collecting societies – APRA AMCOS treats all members and licensees, and reports all complaints to the Code Reviewer, in accordance with the Code. Any divergence from the standards or services set out in the Code will be identified by the Code Reviewer, and published. to ensure that members and licensees have access to efficient, fair and low cost complaints and disputes procedures – APRA AMCOS provides a low cost, purpose built alternative dispute process for members and licensees, and reports each year to the ACCC on its operations. The facility is consistent with APRA AMCOS’ obligations under the Code. APRA AMCOS believes that the Code is an important part of the regulatory framework that encourages all of these endeavours to continue. Question 14: Does the Code need to be improved to better ensure collecting societies act in the best interests of their members? How could members be given a greater say in a collecting society’s key policies and procedures, such as the distribution of funds and use of non-distributable amounts? The collecting societies are public companies that must act in accordance with their respective constitutions, membership agreements, and with the Corporations Act. The Code is not the sole, or even the primary, document that governs the relationship between the societies and their members. The APRA AMCOS distributions rules and practices are determined by the Board, on advice from expert management. The Boards comprise members who are active in the business of each society, and have a keen interest in ensuring that distributions and other allocations are fair and reflect the interests of the membership. There is a membership and distribution committee for each society, which considers matters of distribution in great detail. In addition, APRA has expert groups of members that review matters of distribution policy in relation to particular pools, for example the nightclub pool. As noted above in the answer to question 8, APRA AMCOS has established a number of expert groups to advise the Board in relation to specific distribution pools. Ultimately, the members elect the Board and have no hesitation in contacting members of the Board directly if particular distribution policies are contrary to their wishes. The members have elected Boards that that include writers from fields as diverse as film and television, classical, and popular music, as well as representatives of major and independent music publishers. The directors work diligently to represent the interests of all members, as they are obliged to do by law. Question 15: What would be the costs and benefits of prescribing the Code under legislation? What factors should be considered and which are most important in weighing the costs and benefits? APRA AMCOS cannot comment on the cost to taxpayers of prescribing the Code under legislation. Given the costs currently spent by APRA AMCOS on compliance with the Code, including the cost of the Reviewer, APRA AMCOS does not envisage a significantly increased cost of compliance were the existing Code to be prescribed. If the Code were also to contain increased obligations, there would be cost implications. APRA AMCOS is concerned that if the Code were to be prescribed under legislation, it would be less flexible and adaptive than it is in its current form. As all of the major collecting societies currently comply with the Code voluntarily, APRA AMCOS does not see the need to prescribe the Code under legislation. Indeed, the government’s response to the Don’t Stop the Music! Inquiry stated that the only reason to make a Code mandatory would be if the collecting societies failed to develop a Code or did not comply with it on a voluntary basis. Question 16: Which international regulatory models, or aspects thereof, could best meet the objectives of improving the fairness and efficiency of copyright collecting societies? How feasible is the introduction of these models in Australia and what would be the impact on collecting societies, members and licensees? The Copyright (Regulation of Relevant Licensing Bodies) Regulations 2014 came into force in April 2014, and the UK introduced the directive via its 2014 regulation. APRA AMCOS believes that the European (and, currently, the UK) position should be regarded with caution because of the focus on the single market. For the majority of territories throughout the world, APRA AMCOS considers the Australian Code represents best practice. A senior member of the APRA AMCOS staff is head of the Asia Pacific Committee that is reviewing the application of codes in the Asia Pacific, and APRA AMCOS is actively promoting the introduction of voluntary codes throughout the region, based on the Australian example which, as noted, is held up as international best practice. Question 17: Are there features of other domestic industry codes that could be adopted to improve the fairness and efficiency of Australia’s collecting societies? The Discussion Paper has referred specifically to the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct. APRA AMCOS does not believe that Code is an appropriate model for collecting societies, including because there are no significant issues with the supply of rights into societies (whereas the relationship between suppliers and supermarkets is key to the Grocery Code). Essentially, the Grocery Code of Conduct represents a negotiation between major suppliers and the regulator, as to the treatment of suppliers to the supermarkets. An analogous arrangement to the Collecting Societies’ Code of Conduct would be if the supermarkets were to become bound by a code regulating their arrangements with customers. For the purposes of this response, APRA AMCOS has reviewed the Commercial Radio Code of Practice (http://www.commercialradio.com.au/getattachment/Legal/Regulation-Codes/Commercial-Radio-Codes-Guidelines-September-2013.pdf, administered by the Advertising Standards Bureau), and the Franchising Code of Conduct (administered by the ACCC). We have also reviewed the ACCC’s guidelines for voluntary codes. The Commercial Radio Codes of Practice are developed under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and registered with the Australian Communications and Media Authority after endorsement by commercial broadcasters and consultation with the listening public. Each Code has a stated purpose, for example “to prevent the broadcast of programs which are unsuitable having regard to prevailing community standards and attitudes” and “to ensure that advertisements are distinguishable from other content.” The Codes include a Code regarding dealing with complaints that a Code has been breached. APRA AMCOS notes that the Code regarding complaints contains highly proscriptive detail regarding the treatment of complaints (for example, a broadcaster does not have to comply with the Code if the complaint relates to a broadcast that took place more than 30 days before the date of the complaint). If a person is not satisfied with the way a complaint has been dealt with, they may refer the complaint to ACMA. ACMA investigates complaints where it considers it would be in the public interest to do so. ACMA says it “has a broad range of powers intended to enable it to deal effectively with breaches - all in a manner commensurate with the seriousness of the breach.” For breaches of a Code, these include requiring enforceable undertakings to ensure future compliance, and imposing additional broadcast licence conditions. ACMA says that it often works informally agrees with broadcasters on measures to address compliance problems. APRA AMCOS submits that if a body is to have powers to enforce an industry Code, the Code must have objective standards that can be reasonably understood by those who must comply with the Code, as well as by those who may make complaints regarding breach. The more precise an obligation is, the more appropriate it is that a penalty might be applied. The Code should also set out clearly what does not constitute a breach of the Code. The Franchising Code of Conduct is a mandatory Code under the Competition and Consumer Act, administered by the ACCC. Serious breaches of the Code attract penalties and infringement notices, and refusal to comply with penalty provisions can result in court action. Again, the Code is notable for its detailed description of compliant conduct – for example, the franchisor must maintain a disclosure document. There is a good faith obligation on both parties, but also an express acknowledgement that this obligation does not mean that a party cannot act in its own best commercial interests. APRA AMCOS submits that where breaches of a Code attract penalties, there is a commensurate requirement for specificity regarding compliance with obligations. Comparing the ACCC’s guidelines for voluntary industry codes, and the Collecting Societies’ Code of Conduct, we note that the current Code does not contain detailed complaints handling procedures, but it does require each society to have such procedures. It does not contain sanctions for breach; and it does not contain key performance indicators. APRA AMCOS submits that it is appropriate for each society to develop its own complaints handling procedures, provided they comply with the standards set out in the Code. Each society has a different licensing business, and the nature of complaints is likely to differ considerably between societies. For example, APRA AMCOS has more members, and more small business licensees, than any other society. Accordingly, its complaint handling procedures have been developed to take account of the fact that staff are less likely to be dealing with complaints from sophisticated organisations with a clear understanding of copyright law. As noted above, APRA AMCOS has developed an independent bespoke alternative dispute resolution system, largely to deal with the kinds of complaints it receives from members and licensees. In relation to the suggestion under the ACCC guidelines that a voluntary code should contain commercially significant sanctions, as noted above APRA AMCOS believes that this would only be appropriate if the Code were to be significantly amended to provide sufficiently detailed proscriptions as to compliance. 1 Determination: Application for revocation and substitution of authorisations A91187-A91194 and A91211 lodged by the Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd in respect of arrangements for the acquisition and licensing of performing rights in music Date: 6 June 2014 Authorisation numbers: A91367 - A91375 Para 183 -184 2 Paragraph 284 Directory: sites -> files sites -> Memorandum of agreement files -> Information security policy university administration and services (uas) files -> Chris ham: reforming the nhs lessons from the past and pointers to the future files -> - files -> A guide for parents and carers files -> Ariel M. Sheetrit files -> Chapter Calendar of Events –July 2017 For the benefit of our members and customers please coordinate the scheduling of dates to prevent overlapping events. In the event of conflicting dates it is recommended to personally notify the other chapter of the files -> Collective redress in england & wales files -> County No Treasurer’s Elderly and Disabled property tax credit request affidavit Download 66.91 Kb. Share with your friends:
|